Early next week, a large asteroid...

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:28:39 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:30:08 -0500, Lord Vath
wrote:

Would that be an asteroid or a meteoroid? If it's not in the asteroid
belt, how is it an asteroid?

I'm currently on the committee reviewing and revising the meteor
terminology for presentation to IAU Committee 22. We are currently
operating under definitions adopted in 1961. "Asteroid" is not
formally defined, but "meteoroid" is, as "a solid object moving in
interplanetary space, of a size considerably smaller than an asteroid
and considerably larger than an atom or molecule". In practice,
"asteroid" is generally used for objects larger than about 10m, and
"meteoroid" is generally used for smaller objects. But that does not
reflect any sort of official terminology and the terminology may vary
with context.

We are discussing new definitions that reflect origin and evolution,
rather than size. The matter remains unsettled. Currently, origin is
not considered in the nomenclature.

As a meteoriticist, I would be very surprised to see 2004 BL86
referred to as anything other than an asteroid, particularly as it has
an asteroid designation. There is no designation system for meteoroids
(which is another area of discussion, as we expect in the future more
bodies like 2008 TC3, which are optically detected in space as
asteroids but become meteoroids in the Earth's atmosphere and which
produce meteorites).

Thank you for clearing this up. However, meteoroids which enter the
atmosphere are called, "meteors." The ones that don't burn up
completely and hit the ground are meteorites. Not all meteors or
meteoroids become meteorites. Only a small amount hit the ground.

Meteoroids are usually not in any orbit. Asteroids are usually
circling the sun. And hemorrhoids are only found around Ur anus.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On 22/01/2015 19:54, Lord Vath wrote:

Meteoroids are usually not in any orbit.

Careful, around here people might read this as implying that you believe
that meteoroids are NOT in orbit around the sun, i.e. that they are not
affected by the sun's gravity.

I assume you actually meant that their orbits have not been determined.

In Sam Wormley
wrote:

Early next week, a large asteroid named 2004 BL86 will fly past the
Earth-Moon system.

Any of you folks who use Twitter might want to follow @smod2016 or "Sweet
Meteor O'Death."

Candidate for President, Precambrian Conservative, #smod2016,
Ready to Make an Impact, Tough on Putin & Iran, I'll probably
destroy all earthly life.

--
St. Paul, MN

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:54:53 -0500, Lord Vath
wrote:

Thank you for clearing this up. However, meteoroids which enter the
atmosphere are called, "meteors."

"Meteor" describes the visual phenomenon- the light emitted by the
heated body and by the heated gas around it. Although the 1961
definition defines "meteoroid" as a body moving in interplanetary
space, the term is also conventionally used to refer to the physical
body responsible for creating a meteor. That is, the most commonly
used word for referring to the actual body, even in the atmosphere, is
"meteoroid".

Meteoroids are usually not in any orbit. Asteroids are usually
circling the sun.

Virtually all meteoroids are in solar orbit before encountering the
Earth's atmosphere. In principle, a meteoroid might be briefly
captured by Earth, but that would be quite unstable and short-lived.
All of the thousands of meteors whose orbits have been calculated were
in solar orbit. None were in Earth orbit, and none were convincingly
in hyperbolic orbits (suggesting an extrasolar origin).

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:28:40 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:

We are discussing new definitions that reflect origin and evolution,
rather than size. The matter remains unsettled. Currently, origin is
not considered in the nomenclature.



The members who make up the IAU and dig these huge holes for themselves and everyone else have a physics background and not an astronomical background and my goodness does it show.

It must have seemed like a great idea to 'define' a planet as an isolated object and outside its original context of their observed motions as wanderers however this is the agenda of people who never had a confident feel for the celestial arena ,how it is structurally arranged and the different motions occurring in it.The original term 'planet' is simply a distinction by way of their motions from those of the Sun and moon -

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus

Stargazers are willingly led by the nose by mathematicians but astronomy always suffers in that case and subsequently makes a mockery of Western society. With several structural deficits in place designed to uphold the actions of rely on 'definitions'as a means of authority, this nightmare plaguing astronomy is fairly difficult to deal with at the moment.

It is worth repeating the comments of Pascal even though the unfortunate mathematical mind assumes that 'intuition' means guesswork when it does not. Intuition is similar to the creative processes involved in music composition or any other creative and productive pursuit -



"And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical."

"Jim Newman" wrote in message ...



From the Wikipedia "Asteroid" article

"Terminology
Traditionally, small bodies orbiting the Sun were classified as asteroids,
comets or meteoroids, with anything smaller than ten metres across being
called a meteoroid. The term "asteroid" is ill-defined. It never had a
formal definition, with the broader term minor planet being preferred by
the International Astronomical Union."


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...n/english/glow

VERB

[NO OBJECT]
1Give out steady light without flame

"Glowing like a 9th magnitude star, 2004 BL86 will be an easy target..."
If you are going to nitpick the meaning of words it's glowing, so it's
either a star or it's burning up in atmosphere 3/4 million miles away.

-- Pastor Ravi Holy of Ghetti Spa, Los Agña, Santa Gria
ria
Je suis charlie!

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 4:16:07 AM UTC-5, oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:28:40 PM UTC, peterson wrote:

We are discussing new definitions that reflect origin and evolution,
rather than size. The matter remains unsettled. Currently, origin is
not considered in the nomenclature.

The members who make up the IAU and dig these huge holes for themselves...

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-25

Maybe the IAU will designate 2004 BL86 as a "dwarf asteroid?"

Or Jupiter as an lSSb? (large Solar System body)

planet (n.) - late Old English planete, from Old French planete (Modern French planète), from Late Latin planeta, from Greek planetes, from (asteres) planetai "wandering (stars)," from planasthai "to wander

By definition, a planet is distinguished from other neighborhood celestial objects by their 'wandering' motions and yet we have these IAU dunces talking about cultural changing meanings. The grandeur of a planet is not just isolated to the object itself but the arrangement of the solar system which was derived by accounting for their motions and especially retrograde motions.

These pseudo-scientists calling themselves astronomers can't even manage to admire the partitioning of the 'wandering' motions between inner and outer planetary perspectives. It is nothing short of painful to see the perspective adjustments which partly remove the original heliocentric arguments to make way for the grandstand view we have of Venus and Mercury as they swing out from behind the Sun to their widest point before turning back in front of the Sun -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

Maybe these self-appointed authorities or committees making trite decisions about the 'definition' of a planet would entertain lesser minds while ignoring the opportunity to account for inner planetary retrogrades by making huge adjustments unknown to the original heliocentric astronomers but possible with contemporary imaging and techniques.

Heartbreaking,truly so.

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:31:29 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
Space Weather News for Jan. 21, 2015
http://spaceweather.com


Early next week, a large asteroid named 2004 BL86 will fly past the
Earth-Moon system. There's no danger of a collision, but NASA radars
will be monitoring the mountain-sized space rock as it passes by only
745,000 miles away. Amateur astronomers can watch the flyby, too.
Glowing like a 9th magnitude star, 2004 BL86 will be an easy target
for backyard telescopes on the night of closest approach, Jan. 26-27.
Check http://spaceweather.com for observing tips and more
information.

2004 BL86 is now known to be a binary object...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4459

\Paul A

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 5:19:12 PM UTC-8, Lord Androcles wrote:
"palsing" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:31:29 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
Space Weather News for Jan. 21, 2015
http://spaceweather.com


Early next week, a large asteroid named 2004 BL86 will fly past the
Earth-Moon system. There's no danger of a collision, but NASA radars
will be monitoring the mountain-sized space rock as it passes by only
745,000 miles away. Amateur astronomers can watch the flyby, too.
Glowing like a 9th magnitude star, 2004 BL86 will be an easy target
for backyard telescopes on the night of closest approach, Jan. 26-27.
Check http://spaceweather.com for observing tips and more
information.

2004 BL86 is now known to be a binary object...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4459

\Paul A

I have a problem with that, based on the image shown. The blurb says 70
metres for the minor body and 325 for the major.
That's a ratio of around 1: 4.6.
I thought it looked too small for that so I counted pixels; I got a ratio
of around 1:10 and I erred in the blurb's favour.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.

Well, it could be that the companion was far behind the primary body, that is, the actual distance between them is highly foreshortened. The further away it is, the smaller it would look. Perhaps these guys are many dozens or even hundreds of primary diameters from each other.

\Paul A